TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpensation "in lieu of giving up their right under Press Note 18, which debarred the collaborator from carrying out business in India, without the permission of JV partners". The compensation was also "in lieu of agreeing not to use the name after an interim period i.e. to give up the benefit over a period of time of being known in the market as a joint venture partner of TE". Secondly, the Assessee armed itself with a legal opinion. These facts are sufficient to distinguish the present case from the facts in Zoom Communication (2010 (5) TMI 34 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) where the Court observed that apart from a making wrong claim, the Assessee did so not on the basis of any advice given to it by an auditor or tax expert. Even in MAK Data (2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h February 2008. 3. During the course of re-assessment, the Assessment Officer ('AO') noted that the Respondent had in its computation of income (furnished along with return of income) shown a sum of ₹ 12,12,18,990 as capital gain, treating the cost of acquisition as nil. It was also noted that the Respondent had invested the said sum in capital gain bonds and claimed deduction under Section 54EC of the Act resulting in the chargeable capital gains being 'nil'. The following Note No.22 of the Notes to Account (Schedule 17) was appended by the Respondent: 22. During the year, the Company has entered into a JV settlement of all past, present and future claim/s made by the Company on the foreign collaborator, chan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ITAT, the Assessee has filed an appeal being ITA No. 25 of 2013 in which this Court has by order dated 8th October 2013 framed a question of law. 6. In the meanwhile, the AO imposed a penalty on the Assessee under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act by order dated 21st March 2011 on the ground that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of its claim of capital gains or receipt of capital nature. It was inter alia observed that the contention of the Assessee that it filed details in computation and foot note was not acceptable due to the fact that a wrong claim will always wrong whether the information is given in the return or not . Invoking Explanation I to Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, the AO held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the Assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars and in view of the decisions in MAK Data P. Ltd. v. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC), CIT Delhi v. Zoom Communication 327 ITR 510 (Del) and CIT v. Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del) it must be held that the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act stand attracted. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent Assessee on the other hand submitted that since in the Assessee's quantum appeal, a question has already been framed, that by itself was sufficient to set aside the penalty. He placed reliance on the decision dated 5th October 2010 in ITA No. 240 of 2009 (CIT v. Liquid Investment Trading Co.), and CIT v. Sardar Exhibitors 2015-TIOL-1618-HC-DEL-IT. 10. The Court finds that in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
